What do you get when you mix James Bond, Jason Borne and John Wick....well, you get Lorraine Broughton, a British secret agent who must track down a secret list (is there any other kind?) of top secret agents identities which was stolen by a renegade bad guy (obviously Russian) before he sells it to the highest bidder. If she fails all the good guy spies will be exposed including her. Got That!

That's the premise of the story, and we have secret agents of all types running about in London and Berlin (circa 1989, right around the tumbling of the Berlin Wall) chasing after this list, but too, the man behind the development of the list who committed it to memory, so naturally, they have to kill him or the list would lose it's value and the good guys could not save the lives of its agents. Now, to make things more interesting; there's a double agent, a dead lover/agent, a beautiful French spy, several Russian baddies, car chases and crashes, and some great music. Typical spy movie stuff, circa 1989. Piece of cake.

I went to see it because of Theron (I really liked her in Mad Max), Goodman, James McAvoy, Toby Jones and newcomer Sofia Boutella (who?). Remember that name, she's going places. She was the Mummy (with Tom Cruise) and she was in the recent Star Trek movie; Star Trek Beyond. But there was an unseen factor that I wasn't aware was in the movie, and that's director David Leitch (who co-directed John Wick and John Wick, Chapter 2). His first solo venture in that capacity. Aha! I thought I recognized the action sequences - quick paced and shot almost entirely in "two shot" mode (that's where you the viewer gets to see the actors and stunt crew in full body mode. For me that's a much better way to show all of the action and full range of motion within the sequence).

Here's what I didn't like: The story, other than a short action sequence, takes almost the first half of the movie (which ran 1:55) to develop and felt more like a fashion show than a spy vs spy thriller. It was painstakingly slow and deliberate. Broughton is called in to debrief her boss at MI6 (played by the wonderful Toby Jones) and a CIA official as the story unfolds in fits and starts. Meanwhile Broughton describes what took place during her mission. And, if you weren't paying close attention, you could have easily gotten lost in order to know "who's on first, what's on second."

The plot took more twists than a pretzel in a tornado, but what seemed like slow motion. The overall story is based on a 2012 graphic novel named The Coldest City, and I was beginning to fall asleep as the debriefing continued. Here's how the story is described in Wikipedia:

"...revolves around a spy who has to find a list of double agents who are being smuggled into the Weston the eve of the collapse of the Berlin Wall..."

Got it. I thought I was about to go under when the real fun begins: Broughton has to take the double agent with the photographic memory across the border to freedom; and the chase begins. The baddies are looking to kill "Spyglass" and Broughton must run the gauntlet to save him. It is suspenseful, action packed and quite simple to follow. The fight scenes seemed exhilaratingly "real" and exhausting, where both our hero and the baddies fight tooth and nail in a seeming brawl as Charlize's character desperately works her way to the border and freedom.
All I can say is Wow.

Leitch took the action in John Wick much further by presenting actual human reactions and responses and putting them in the mix. Brilliant! No superhero and unrealistic type sequences of our hero coming out of the fray unscathed. It reminded me somewhat of the early Bond movies with Sean Connery, as he would use household appliances and props to battle with the bad guys. Loved the second half of the movie and I would pit it against the best that Borne, or even John Wick has to offer.

I give this movie 3 out of 5 stars. Not bad for his first outing under his own power as a moviemaker. Theron is awesome here. So good until the very end, well, the second half, I mean.

Recently Charlize has been giving interviews about how she has always been stoned out of her gourd, and then oblivious about why she kept getting replaced in roles she was already cast in.
I did enjoy her in 2 Days in The Valley, and can understand she might need to be stoned to strut around in all those skimpy outfits, but now that I understand that she's been addicted all these years makes more sense about why she hasn't been more successful.

I'm kinda hoping that this film will help me forget all of her woeful whining enough to enjoy it.
SGG, did any of this distract you during your viewing?

IIRC The Berlin Wall was opened in Nov 1989, and disassembled from June 1990 to 1992.

No, no distraction because I don't think about the rumors of her addiction or of her being a total bitch to fans and other actors. I remember when she won the Oscar for Best Actress she didn't even acknowledge Christina Ricci for her support in the movie Monster. Ricci was so in tune with Theron in her role as the girlfriend that it made it much easier for Charlize to react to.

I'm not into boycotting an actor unless it involves something of substance, like support for a good cause. Otherwise, no I don't think of it. She does a really good job in this movie, apparently she was sober enough to pay attention to her role.
By the way, she helped produce it. So there's that.

The Berlin Wall was a backdrop against the highly charged espionage scene, so it may not have been wholly accurate (not important), but this was an action spy thriller. But no, I was totally in to the movie, except for the first half, which was slow, like I said.

SGG

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Recently Charlize has been giving interviews about how she has always been stoned out of her gourd, and then oblivious about why she kept getting replaced in roles she was already cast in.
I did enjoy her in 2 Days in The Valley, and can understand she might need to be stoned to strut around in all those skimpy outfits, but now that I understand that she's been addicted all these years makes more sense about why she hasn't been more successful.

I'm kinda hoping that this film will help me forget all of her woeful whining enough to enjoy it.
SGG, did any of this distract you during your viewing?

IIRC The Berlin Wall was opened in Nov 1989, and disassembled from June 1990 to 1992.

EDIT: BTW... I never denied my addictive personality. Not only have I had quite a lot of experience with illicit and legal substance abuse, but I've known quite a few other people who have. A lot of them are either dead now or in prison. I consider myself somewhat of a "street smart" expert on the subject, if for no other reason that I'm still alive and "free" to tell the tales.

Spend some time around people who use things like heroin or meth, and then tell me that weed is any more of a drug than coffee or cigarettes.

EDIT: BTW... I never denied my addictive personality. Not only have I had quite a lot of experience with illicit and legal substance abuse, but I've known quite a few other people who have. A lot of them are either dead now or in prison. I consider myself somewhat of a "street smart" expert on the subject, if for no other reason that I'm still alive and "free" to tell the tales.

Spend some time around people who use things like heroin or meth, and then tell me that weed is any more of a drug than coffee or cigarettes.

I'm not sure if facts will penetrate your belief system, but here are a few items to consider:
I grew up near Madison, WI - which has had weed legal to possess since April 1977. The annual weed celebrations include Weedstock, Mifflin Street Block Party (known for the brownies), and Harvest Fest (with the parade on the pedestrian mall of State Street, passing out free baggies).

The study which detailed the effects and dosages of pot was conducted by the University of Wisconsin - Madison. IIRC the year was something like 1973.

Quote:Spend some time around people who use things like heroin or meth, and then tell me that weed is any more of a drug than coffee or cigarettes.

There are still people in this world that believe:

-Pot is a dangerous drug
-That pot leads to other drugs such as heroin or meth
-And that it should be put on equal footing with the illicit drugs

It is legal in a lot of states; it is not a dangerous drug; there are people with addictive personalities that abuse "hard" drugs without having touched pot.

Quiet as it's kept, it is not habit forming. I smoked it on and off for many years and here I am NOT addicted to anything other than coffee, if you could call it an addiction. So, if there's anyone still thinking 'that' way, well set them straight.

By the way, the AG Sessions is cracking down mightily on marijuana and all peoples either buying, selling, using or what have you regardless if it is legal or not. This is the guy who said that he felt the KKK was fine until he learned that they smoked pot. Trump sure knows how to pick 'em.

EDIT: BTW... I never denied my addictive personality. Not only have I had quite a lot of experience with illicit and legal substance abuse, but I've known quite a few other people who have. A lot of them are either dead now or in prison. I consider myself somewhat of a "street smart" expert on the subject, if for no other reason that I'm still alive and "free" to tell the tales.

Spend some time around people who use things like heroin or meth, and then tell me that weed is any more of a drug than coffee or cigarettes.

I'm not sure if facts will penetrate your belief system, but here are a few items to consider:
I grew up near Madison, WI - which has had weed legal to possess since April 1977. The annual weed celebrations include Weedstock, Mifflin Street Block Party (known for the brownies), and Harvest Fest (with the parade on the pedestrian mall of State Street, passing out free baggies).

The study which detailed the effects and dosages of pot was conducted by the University of Wisconsin - Madison. IIRC the year was something like 1973.

I suspect one of us knows more about pot than the other one.

Yep. Me.

I lived just south of Milwaukee for 5 years. I'm familiar with all of that.

I notice you didn't actually introduce any facts though... at least any that were against weed.

Quote:Spend some time around people who use things like heroin or meth, and then tell me that weed is any more of a drug than coffee or cigarettes.

There are still people in this world that believe:

-Pot is a dangerous drug
-That pot leads to other drugs such as heroin or meth
-And that it should be put on equal footing with the illicit drugs

It is legal in a lot of states; it is not a dangerous drug; there are people with addictive personalities that abuse "hard" drugs without having touched pot.

Quiet as it's kept, it is not habit forming. I smoked it on and off for many years and here I am NOT addicted to anything other than coffee, if you could call it an addiction. So, if there's anyone still thinking 'that' way, well set them straight.

By the way, the AG Sessions is cracking down mightily on marijuana and all peoples either buying, selling, using or what have you regardless if it is legal or not. This is the guy who said that he felt the KKK was fine until he learned that they smoked pot. Trump sure knows how to pick 'em.

Ah, this country...full of "surprises."

SGG

Yup. Not addictive.

As far as the "gateway drug" bullshit, that doesn't hold any water unless they also made cigarettes and booze illegal. I have never seen any evidence that shows that pot is any more a gateway drug to harder substances than either booze or cigarettes.

Can anybody tell me if William and Jeff Sessions are related other than their aversion to drugs?

Quote:Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
There are still people in this world that believe:

-Pot is a dangerous drug

While pot addicts continue to deny the facts that it is.

Quote:-That pot leads to other drugs such as heroin or meth

While pot addicts continue to deny the fact that it is.

Quote:-And that it should be put on equal footing with the illicit drugs

put down the joint and step away from the pot, check your dictionary and try to fit your thinking cap back on. Illicit means forbidden by Law, and pot is forbidden by Federal Law - despite what your surreal version of your surroundings indicates. It IS an illicit drug, not a separate category.

Quote:It is legal in a lot of states

Except States in The United States of America - where pot remains against Federal Law unless on Sovereign Nation (such as Native Americans) or medical use with a prescription by a Doctor of Medicine. Whichever of the 58 States of America you and your fellow Obamapotheads are exempted from Federal Law, you could specify - State of Baja? State of Islam? State of Denial? State of Somnambulance? State of Delusion?

Quote:it is not a dangerous drug;

Are you in denial that pot is an immuno-suppressant?
Are you in denial that pot is an immuno-depressant?
Are you in denial that anything more than "casual use" can cause permanent damage to the immune system, producing "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome"?
Are you proclaiming that you have not the slightest clue about what the difference is between "casual use" and "abuse"?
Are you in denial regarding the relationship between pot and birth defects?
Are you in denial that BIRTH DEFECTS can produce an ENTIRE LIFETIME of pain, suffering, health problems and danger?

Quote:there are people with addictive personalities that abuse "hard" drugs without having touched pot.

Ah, this country...full of "surprises."

SGG

Only surprising to those in denial.

I did mention the Harvest Fest. Never in my whole life have I seen a larger parade of Down's Syndrome kids than the annual Harvest Fest Parades, where the pot moms can't get others to watch over their Down's Syndrome kids, so they are dragged the length of State Street during the parade. Other than this parade, I have found that Down's Syndrome kids are largely a rarity. It remains likely that the pot moms were still so clouded in their attempts at thought that they did not realize the demonstration they were providing, due to their denials to themselves.

Gotta love it when somebody who is against weed thinks that everybody that is for it is a big Obama idiot.

Pot is far less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol. On that basis alone, the fact that weed is illegal is pure hypocrisy. The only reason it is illegal is political, and now that states can't milk anymore money out of cigarette smokers and the well is running dry on alcohol taxes, weed legalization is the next step.

Unfortunately for me, living in a state that actually is responsible with its money means that it won't be legal here anytime soon.

Just be patient with it, the first half sets up the second and, IMHO, better half of the movie. It reminded me of the movies made before CGI became overwhelmingly popular. It's kind of a throwback to the good old days of James Bond (with Sean Connery). Theron is a female Bond or Jason Borne....a type of lethal weapon; a John Wick jr.

She's awesome in her role as an action star. The story could have been better, but it will not disappoint if you are into spy action thrillers. Definitely Redbox it.

I have to say that you bring up the strangest topics in the strangest ways.
I don't give a sh.......I don't care about pot; whether it's legal or not, whether it's habit forming or not, nada, zip, zilch!

And while there is a federal law against pot, you have rich folk like Nick Lashay trying to corner the market and become the Pot Kingpin in Colorado or wherever. Funny how that works.....

But, like I said, don't give a rat's ass about it no how, no way. And that's all I have to say about that. Let's go back to talking about the movie, shall we hmmmmm.

SGG

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
There are still people in this world that believe:

-Pot is a dangerous drug

While pot addicts continue to deny the facts that it is.

Quote:-That pot leads to other drugs such as heroin or meth

While pot addicts continue to deny the fact that it is.

Quote:-And that it should be put on equal footing with the illicit drugs

put down the joint and step away from the pot, check your dictionary and try to fit your thinking cap back on. Illicit means forbidden by Law, and pot is forbidden by Federal Law - despite what your surreal version of your surroundings indicates. It IS an illicit drug, not a separate category.

Quote:It is legal in a lot of states

Except States in The United States of America - where pot remains against Federal Law unless on Sovereign Nation (such as Native Americans) or medical use with a prescription by a Doctor of Medicine. Whichever of the 58 States of America you and your fellow Obamapotheads are exempted from Federal Law, you could specify - State of Baja? State of Islam? State of Denial? State of Somnambulance? State of Delusion?

Quote:it is not a dangerous drug;

Are you in denial that pot is an immuno-suppressant?
Are you in denial that pot is an immuno-depressant?
Are you in denial that anything more than "casual use" can cause permanent damage to the immune system, producing "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome"?
Are you proclaiming that you have not the slightest clue about what the difference is between "casual use" and "abuse"?
Are you in denial regarding the relationship between pot and birth defects?
Are you in denial that BIRTH DEFECTS can produce an ENTIRE LIFETIME of pain, suffering, health problems and danger?

Quote:there are people with addictive personalities that abuse "hard" drugs without having touched pot.

Ah, this country...full of "surprises."

SGG

Only surprising to those in denial.

I did mention the Harvest Fest. Never in my whole life have I seen a larger parade of Down's Syndrome kids than the annual Harvest Fest Parades, where the pot moms can't get others to watch over their Down's Syndrome kids, so they are dragged the length of State Street during the parade. Other than this parade, I have found that Down's Syndrome kids are largely a rarity. It remains likely that the pot moms were still so clouded in their attempts at thought that they did not realize the demonstration they were providing, due to their denials to themselves.

Quote:Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I have to say that you bring up the strangest topics in the strangest ways.
I don't give a sh.......I don't care about pot; whether it's legal or not, whether it's habit forming or not, nada, zip, zilch!

But, like I said, don't give a rat's ass about it no how, no way. And that's all I have to say about that. Let's go back to talking about the movie, shall we hmmmmm.

SGG

Yowza. You backed up a lot of steps there.

I am hoping to catch AB tomorrow. Haven't seen Baby Driver for show in weeks.

Quote:I like in the trailer she doesn't just mow through those guys like they're nothing. She takes her share of hits as well.

That's exactly how I felt. Truly excited about the action sequences and how they were set up. It was both brutally honest and wonderfully choreographed, but it felt like a "real" knock down, drag out fight; totally spontaneous.

I mention Bond because some of the action reminded me of the early Bond movies where 007 used everything but the kitchen sink to fight off the bad guys. But AB is more realistic in their fight sequences and made it much more fun, at least for me.
Charlize gives as good as she gets. I "felt" every punch, throw and kick....and so did she. By the way, it's the same guys who brought you John Wick; so there's that.

SGG

Quote:Originally posted by Moose:
Fight scenes look to be great. I like in the trailer she doesn't just mow through those guys like they're nothing. She takes her share of hits as well.

So, with her around, can they stop saying that James Bond needs to be a woman?

Quote:Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Didn't mean to be too harsh, I just thought we got away from the topic.

SGG

Agreed, and I thought that several times before.

I saw AB yesterday. I was glad that that topic did not interfere with my enjoyment of her performance, my suspension of disbelief was maintained, at least regarding her character.

But I felt like there was far too much effort with moodiness and perhaps attempting to be stylish. I did have difficulty staying awake during this show (although the film I watched after kept my attention easily). I have no clue what was up with all of the color tones, hues - were they supposed to mean something? I did enjoy the soundtrack, heavy on German groups like Berlin and Nina - with at least 2 versions of 99 Luft Balloons (does anybody recall the trivia about that title being a top rated release? And how it could have easily been a #1 hit for weeks?). Much of the music alluded to the impending branch of Techno, and almost House - but mostly due to each entry using a Dance remix version of the hit.
I felt like the twists were like a Redford or Clooney type spy thriller - just too sophomoric. For action, it was nice of the opponents to wait their turn to attack, instead of taking advantage of greater numbers. Although

Select to view spoiler:

It appears some of that was intentional, just for show depending on which other party was watching.Apparently this was another film based upon a comic, which apparently had several issues to span the story arc. THIS fact is one which can explain the lack of depth I felt the story had. I don't know what age the target audience was for the comic book.
With the editing and transition, I wasn't sure if they wanted the audience to understand the story, of if they really wanted to leave viewers in the dust.
I felt the fight scenes were adequate, in the way that John Wick was. Meaning that if you are not a fan of violence/action, then you may tire of the repetitiveness.
I did find it curious that there was no male nudity (IIRC), but both Theron and Boutella plus some random playmates have numerous scenes. For a film with a female lead character.
It should be mentioned that this film, without the action scenes, amounts to a twisted spy story, told through a debriefing. I was reminded of The Interview several times. So there is an quasi-intellectual game being played out, interspersed with fights and sex scenes.
If there was adequate foreshadowing of the endings, it didn't register with me while the pace was putting me to sleep. Much of the plot errors did annoy me.

I should admit that this film did suffer in my mind even more because I saw a much, much, much more entertaining film right afterwards (Dark Tower).

Quote:Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Gotta love it when somebody who is against weed thinks that everybody that is for it is a big Obama idiot.

Are you saying that there are some potheads who don't support the first self-admitted pot and cocaine dealer to become President?

I'm not saying that at all. I'm sure there were many that did.

If you think that there aren't plenty of successful people out there that smoke pot though, you're wrong. And if you think that only Democrats smoke pot, you're wrong.

It's hard to explain the appeal of pot to somebody who has never smoked it before. I've never seen a movie that even came close to accurately representing it. Also, although you can't OD on pot, you can definately overuse it just like many legal products out there that aren't even drugs. (ie: food)

Save the first two or three times you try it, there isn't even any altered state of consciousness. It's just a nice feeling. I used everyday for 12 years until I had to quit in case a real job came along that I didn't want to risk because of what is essentially unconstitutional pre-job drug testing.

Personally, I wasn't any good at a job while smoking because I could occasionally get a bit paranoid, so I never smoked before or at work. For me it was just a nice way to unwind at the end of the day. I didn't come home and roll a huge blunt and get stoned out of my mind like Snoop Dogg. I had a hitter bat or a small pipe and occasionally took a hit. An ounce typically lasted me about 2 months. In those 12 years I only drank socially. It wasn't until I quit smoking pot that I became a dumb drunk.

Financially speaking alone, that 2-month ounce ran me about 60 bucks. When I was drinking my heaviest, I was spending over $300/month on beer. That's not even mentioning the insane damage I caused my body while over-indulging in a completely legal substance.

All I'm saying is that it's not this evil thing you're making it out to be.

As to my original point, unless she was smoking an ounce or two a day, Charleze was lying about the reason she was forgetting she was in a movie. Even at that level of consumption since the tolerance would be built up so much more at that point I doubt that she wasn't also drinking or doing some other drugs at the same time.

Quote:Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Gotta love it when somebody who is against weed thinks that everybody that is for it is a big Obama idiot.

Are you saying that there are some potheads who don't support the first self-admitted pot and cocaine dealer to become President?

I'm not saying that at all. I'm sure there were many that did.

If you think that there aren't plenty of successful people out there that smoke pot though, you're wrong. And if you think that only Democrats smoke pot, you're wrong.

It's hard to explain the appeal of pot to somebody who has never smoked it before. I've never seen a movie that even came close to accurately representing it. Also, although you can't OD on pot, you can definately overuse it just like many legal products out there that aren't even drugs. (ie: food)

Save the first two or three times you try it, there isn't even any altered state of consciousness. It's just a nice feeling. I used everyday for 12 years until I had to quit in case a real job came along that I didn't want to risk because of what is essentially unconstitutional pre-job drug testing.

Personally, I wasn't any good at a job while smoking because I could occasionally get a bit paranoid, so I never smoked before or at work. For me it was just a nice way to unwind at the end of the day. I didn't come home and roll a huge blunt and get stoned out of my mind like Snoop Dogg. I had a hitter bat or a small pipe and occasionally took a hit. An ounce typically lasted me about 2 months. In those 12 years I only drank socially. It wasn't until I quit smoking pot that I became a dumb drunk.

Financially speaking alone, that 2-month ounce ran me about 60 bucks. When I was drinking my heaviest, I was spending over $300/month on beer. That's not even mentioning the insane damage I caused my body while over-indulging in a completely legal substance.

All I'm saying is that it's not this evil thing you're making it out to be.

As to my original point, unless she was smoking an ounce or two a day, Charleze was lying about the reason she was forgetting she was in a movie. Even at that level of consumption since the tolerance would be built up so much more at that point I doubt that she wasn't also drinking or doing some other drugs at the same time.

Are you saying overuse of food can permanently damage your immune system? What food?

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Are you saying overuse of food can permanently damage your immune system? What food?

Are you just trolling me now? I wrote an entire page and that's what you got from it?

No. That's not what I'm saying.

Overeating can have many serious health issues, and you already know that. Especially overeating the wrong foods which are unfortunately usually the cheapest. I have a hard time even believing that we can classify half of the stuff they sell in grocery stores and fast food joints as "food" anymore. I don't think "consumables" is even an appropriate word for it.

Weed doesn't permanently damage your immune system. You're going to have to show multiple cites on that one. I've heard many alleged negatives about it by people against it over the years but I've never heard this one before.

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Are you saying overuse of food can permanently damage your immune system? What food?

Are you just trolling me now? I wrote an entire page and that's what you got from it?

you built up your house of cards argument upon a flimsy foundation of fiction. I was questioning if that was the foundation you intended, and how you got it wrong. All the rest that follows, logically, from a faulty premise, is logically irrelevant until a sturdy foundation is obtained.

Quote:No. That's not what I'm saying.

Overeating can have many serious health issues, and you already know that. Especially overeating the wrong foods which are unfortunately usually the cheapest. I have a hard time even believing that we can classify half of the stuff they sell in grocery stores and fast food joints as "food" anymore. I don't think "consumables" is even an appropriate word for it.

You said food, and I asked about your assertion of food. Nobody said that the poisons, pesticides, carcinogens, phenyls, High Fructose Corn Syrup, or other fake sweeteners are considered food.

Quote:Weed doesn't permanently damage your immune system.

OK. Now we have identified the problem - you are in denial. You have not the most basic comprehension of the fundamental properties of pot, nor likely any form of medication.

Quote: You're going to have to show multiple cites on that one. I've heard many alleged negatives about it by people against it over the years but I've never heard this one before.

How about you provide cites of the research into pot use and abuse which indicate it cannot produce permanent damage to the immune system. UW-Madison already determined the dosages in the early 70's, and I have not heard of any contradictory research since then.

I was also annoyed by the lame fashion statements.
Nowadays women feel the need to have 6 or 10 bra straps sticking out over their shoulders. But this was supposed to be in 1989-1990, when this lame fad was not yet in bloom. So the wardrobe was inconsistent with the time period.

Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Are you saying overuse of food can permanently damage your immune system? What food?

Are you just trolling me now? I wrote an entire page and that's what you got from it?

you built up your house of cards argument upon a flimsy foundation of fiction. I was questioning if that was the foundation you intended, and how you got it wrong. All the rest that follows, logically, from a faulty premise, is logically irrelevant until a sturdy foundation is obtained.

Quote:No. That's not what I'm saying.

Overeating can have many serious health issues, and you already know that. Especially overeating the wrong foods which are unfortunately usually the cheapest. I have a hard time even believing that we can classify half of the stuff they sell in grocery stores and fast food joints as "food" anymore. I don't think "consumables" is even an appropriate word for it.

You said food, and I asked about your assertion of food. Nobody said that the poisons, pesticides, carcinogens, phenyls, High Fructose Corn Syrup, or other fake sweeteners are considered food.

Quote:Weed doesn't permanently damage your immune system.

OK. Now we have identified the problem - you are in denial. You have not the most basic comprehension of the fundamental properties of pot, nor likely any form of medication.

Quote: You're going to have to show multiple cites on that one. I've heard many alleged negatives about it by people against it over the years but I've never heard this one before.

How about you provide cites of the research into pot use and abuse which indicate it cannot produce permanent damage to the immune system. UW-Madison already determined the dosages in the early 70's, and I have not heard of any contradictory research since then.

I'm just going to end this argument here with two thoughts.

1. Show me any proof that pot is in any way more dangerous to the user and other people in the vicinity of the user than legal substances such as alcohol and cigarettes, let alone what people put in their bodies that is marketed as food.

2. It's going to be legalized everywhere in the states at some point in your life, assuming your anywhere near my age.

All FIREFLY graphics and photos on this page are copyright 2002-2012 Mutant Enemy, Inc., Universal Pictures, and 20th Century Fox.
All other graphics and texts are copyright of the contributors to this website.
This website IS NOT affiliated with the Official Firefly Site, Mutant Enemy, Inc., or 20th Century Fox.